Opinion filed February 28 , 201 3



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 12

- 00194

- C R

__________ KENNETH CODY WOOD , Appellant V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 26 th District Court

Williamson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No . 04

- 757

- K26

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Kenneth Cody Wood pleaded guilty in July 2005 to the first

- degree felony offense of possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate
, alleging multiple violation s of the terms and conditions of community s upervision

. The trial court heard the motion to proceed on June 6 , 2012. Appellant pleaded “ [ n ] ot true” to all of the alleged violations . At the conclusion of the hearing, t he trial court found all of the alleged violations to be true, adjudicated appel lan t guilty2 of the charged offense, and assessed h is punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twe lve years

. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a mot ion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of th e b r ief and advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. 1 Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969);
and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismi ssed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that co urt. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismiss ed.

PER CURIAM
February 28 , 2013 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J.

1 By letter, this c ourt granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.